AR Analyst

Celsius Holdings, Inc. Sued for Securities Law Violations - Contact the DJS Law Group to Discuss Your Rights - CELH. LOS ANGELES-(BUSINESS WIRE)-The DJS Law Group reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Celsius Holdings, Inc. ("Celsius" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CELH) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Shareholders who purchased shares of CELH during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff appointments. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CLASS PERIOD: February 21, 2025 to June 3, 2026 DEADLINE: November 3, 2026 CASE DETAILS: According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Celsius marketed Alani Nu drinks to underage consumers despite the potential health risks the products could cause for people under the age of 18. Based on these facts, Celsius' public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. WHY DJS LAW GROUP? DJS Law Group's primary focus is to enhance investor return through balanced counseling and aggressive advocacy. We specialize in securities class actions, corporate governance litigation, and domestic/international M&A appraisals. Our clients are some of the largest and most sophisticated hedge funds and alternative asset managers in the world. The litigation claims of our clients are extraordinarily valuable assets that demand respect, focus, and results. Contacts. David J. Schwartz DJS Law Group 274 White Plains Road, Suite 1 Eastchester, NY 10709 Phone: 914-206-9742 Email: [email protected] More News From The DJS Law Group LOS ANGELES-( BUSINESS WIRE )-DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. Sued for Securities Law Violations - Contact the DJS Law Group to Discuss Your Rights - DKS... LOS ANGELES-( BUSINESS WIRE )-Unicycive Therapeutics, Inc. Sued for Securities Law Violations - Contact the DJS Law Group to Discuss Your Rights - UNCY... LOS ANGELES-( BUSINESS WIRE )-Papa John's International, Inc. Sued for Securities Law Violations - Contact the DJS Law Group to Discuss Your Rights - PZZA... The DJS Law Group. NASDAQ:CELH Release Summary Release Versions David J. Schwartz DJS Law Group 274 White Plains Road, Suite 1 Eastchester, NY 10709 Phone: 914-206-9742 Email: [email protected]

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC urges Celsius Holdings, Inc. investors to act: Class Action filed alleging investor harm. NEW YORK, Sept. 08, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) - Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized investor-rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Celsius Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: CELH) and certain of its officers. "Our practice focuses on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability to uphold market integrity," said Peretz Bronstein. This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Celsius securities between February 21, 2025 and June 3, 2026, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/cases/celsius-holdings-inc-celh-class_action_lawsuit. Celsius Case Details The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Alani Nu products did not adequately disclose the cardiac risks associated with their consumption; (2) by marketing Alani Nu beverages to consumers under the age of 18, the Company targeted individuals who were particularly susceptible to the products' known health risks; (3) consequently, there was a material risk that consumers of Alani Nu products could suffer potentially fatal adverse health events; (4) the disclosure of these risks was likely to significantly harm the Company's business and reputation; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements concerning the Company's business, operations, compliance policies, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. What's Next for Celsius Investors? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/cases/celsius-holdings-inc-celh-class_action_lawsuit. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 917-590-0911. If you suffered a loss in Celsius you have until November 3, 2026, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. No Cost to Celsius Investors We, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC for Celsius Securities Class Action? Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. More at www.bgandg.com "Our practice centers on restoring investor capital and ensuring corporate accountability, which serves to uphold the essential integrity of the marketplace," said Peretz Bronstein, Founding Partner of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC. Contact Info Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or Nathan Miller Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC 917-590-0911 | [email protected] Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Influencer disclosure class actions are the real risk now - not the FTC. The FTC has never collected a monetary penalty from an individual influencer over a missing #ad - but private plaintiffs already have. In 2026, class-action suits against Revolve, Shein, and Celsius are seeking close to a billion dollars combined in damages over undisclosed sponsored content, filed under state consumer-protection laws that let an individual shopper recover money directly and shift attorney fees onto the losing defendant. If your compliance plan is built around avoiding an FTC investigation, it's defending against the enforcement risk that isn't actually moving. The one that is: a contract and monitoring gap that plaintiffs' firms have already learned how to find. Why is the FTC less of a risk right now than a private lawsuit? The FTC Act gives the Commission itself the power to sue over deceptive endorsements, but it doesn't give an individual consumer a private right of action - only the Commission can bring a case, and its 2026 attention has gone mostly toward synthetic-performer disclosure and coordinated state-AG actions, not toward auditing individual creator captions. Civil penalties top out at roughly $53,088 per violation once the Commission does act, but that number is close to theoretical for a single influencer post: the FTC has never actually collected one from an individual creator. Plaintiffs' firms don't need the FTC to move first. They plead the same underlying facts - a paid post presented as an unpaid opinion - under their own state's consumer-protection statute, which typically does allow a private suit, statutory damages, and fee-shifting that lets a firm front the litigation cost against the expectation the losing brand pays it back. That's a fundamentally different incentive structure than a regulator that has to prioritize across an entire economy. What pattern do these lawsuits actually target? The suits filed so far read like the same complaint with the brand name swapped. Revolve faces a proposed class action seeking roughly $50 million, alleging a shopper bought products after being influenced by creators who didn't clearly disclose the paid relationship. Shein was hit with a suit seeking damages in excess of $500 million, alleging influencers presented themselves as ordinary consumers rather than paid brand ambassadors. Celsius faces a suit seeking damages in excess of $450 million on the theory that undisclosed promotion artificially inflated what buyers were willing to pay. Gymshark was sued in the Southern District of New York on June 16, 2026 (Lupea v. Gymshark USA, No. 1:26-cv-05073), alleging the brand systematically disguised paid influencer promotion as authentic, organic endorsement. Across all of them, the specific fact pattern plaintiffs point to is consistent: disclosure buried inside a long caption, dropped among a pile of unrelated hashtags, pushed below the "see more" fold, or simply absent while the post reads as a personal recommendation. How does a missing #ad turn into real damages? The legal theory doing the work here is price inflation, not embarrassment. Plaintiffs argue they paid a price that assumed the endorsement was genuine, unpaid word-of-mouth - a signal of real product demand - when it was actually paid media dressed as organic content, and that the undisclosed payment let the brand charge more than it otherwise could have. Because the FTC Act itself gives them no direct path to sue, they route the same facts through their state's unfair-and-deceptive-practices law, which typically does. That's why the brand, not just the influencer, is now the named defendant in these filings: the complaint's theory is that the brand benefited from the inflated price, so the brand carries the exposure even though it was the creator who wrote the caption. What contract clauses actually close this gap? Most creator agreements already say something like "comply with FTC guidance," which is exactly the language that does nothing in front of a plaintiff's attorney holding a screenshot. What holds up is more specific. Spell out the exact approved disclosure language and placement for each platform and content format, rather than referencing the guidance in the abstract. Add an explicit right to inspect the live post - not just approve the draft before it ships - and to demand immediate correction or takedown if the disclosure isn't where it's supposed to be. Tie a portion of payment to that disclosure staying intact and visible for the life of the campaign, not just at the moment of posting; a creator who edits the caption or removes the platform's native tag after your review is the exact gap these suits are built to find. And add indemnification specifically for the creator's own unauthorized deviation from the approved disclosure, so a rogue edit doesn't leave your brand alone holding the exposure. Its contract checklist post covers the fuller set of clauses worth auditing, and the native-label gap piece covers the specific failure mode where a platform's own Paid Partnership toggle doesn't survive a paid boost. What does post-publication monitoring need to look like? A plaintiff's attorney doesn't screenshot the draft you approved - they screenshot the post that's actually live, often months after it first went up, at whatever point a purchase can be tied back to it. That means monitoring has to check the live URL on a recurring basis, not just sign off once before launch. A practical version: a recurring pass - weekly is a reasonable cadence for an active campaign - over every currently-live sponsored post, confirming the platform-native label and caption disclosure are still both present, with a screenshot and timestamp saved as the record. Keep that log for the life of the campaign plus a buffer, since a purchase-based claim can look back to any point the post was visible. This is also where the same infrastructure you'd use to measure what a creator's post actually sold pulls double duty: Hyperstar attributes real sales to each creator's live post over time, which means the same tracking record that tells you a post is driving revenue can also show what disclosure state that post was in when each sale happened. If your creator contracts haven't been updated since the current wave of suits started, get started.